Jobs Crisis Threatens to Topple Belgian Coalition

Scan page 7

ORATICE Ta TOKI Inhual Rolainn wnrkers shook the svstem with a general strike. And 1982?

THE crisis in the Belgian steel industry which only last Autumn led to the collapse of the coalition government led by Mark Eyskens now threatens the future of the new

coalition government of Wilfried Martens.

The Eyskens government - the fifth government to be formed since the 1978 General Election - collapsed when the Socialist Ministers in it refused to deal with any other business until agreement was reached on a rescue plan for the Belgian steel industry.

A plan had been worked out by the EEC, the Belgian government and the banks in January 1981. When the banks refused to pay up unless the previously agreed number of redundancies was dramatically increased, the plan collapsed.

Pressure The steel industry is concentrated in Liege and Charleroi in French speaking Wallonia. The ministers of the French-speaking Socialist Party were therefore under heavy pressure from the working class in the South to pull out of the government.

An election on november 8 resulted in Eyskens' Social Christian Party losing a quarter of its seats in the House of Representatives - no mean feat in an electoral system based on a form of proportional representation that usually ensures only modest gains or losses.

The Socialist Party maintained its position, gaining three seats, despite naving participated in outgoing government.

Liberal Party must right wing of the big parties — made the greatest gains.

In attempting to put together a new coalition the Belgian ruling class faced serious economic and political problems that went far beyond the crisis in the steel industry. While inflation stands at a relatively modest 8%, unemployment is now running at 13.1% - the highest in the EEC.

The government deficit for 1982 was due to rise to 8% of gross domestic product according to the government, 15% according to the banks.

At the same time the divisions between Flemishspeaking Flanders and French-speaking Wallonia, which had receded into the background during the boom years, have been re-emerging with the growing economic crisis.

Dilemma

So the dilemma facing the ruling class was this:

To hold the. country together, the widest possible coalition was necessary, preferably. a 'Grand Coalition' involving all three major parties. However, the wider the coalition, the less decisive it would be in tackling the now urgent economic problems facing Belgian capitalism.

The Liberals were first gorero0 past In 1Y01 (4DUVE) DEigar wurner before Christmas, a SocialChristian/Liberal coalition was put together led by Wilfried Martens.

However, this coalition was not put together without difficulty. The Social Christian party has a Flemish and a Frenchspeaking wing. The French speaking wing is very conscious of the threat the Socialist Party poses on its left and is fearful of losing members of its trade union federation, the CSC, to the Socialist FGTB.

Liberal Party They therefore scuttled the Liberal Party's attempt to form a government and only agreed to back a Social Christian-led alliance with the Liberals when it became obvious that the 'grand coalition' could not be put together. So the Walloon Social Christians represent a permanent source of instability in the new government, particularly with the continuing escalation of industrial action in the Frenchspeaking South.

In seeking a vote of confidence from Parliament in the first week of February, Martens announced that he was seeking the right to rule by decree during the next 12 months so that he could act decisively to bring the economic crisis under control.

Among his proposals were:

*A change in the indexatice system which gives *i camers and the social security automatic compensation for inflation. Martens wants to freeze wages until May 31 and then allow only partial compensation, so that real wages fall by 3% in 1982. Only the lowest paid will continue to be protected by indexation.

*Cut corporation tax from 57% to 45%.

*Force 'lame duck' industries. being propped up by state aid - particularly steel, shipbuilding and textiles - to cut wages of workers by 5% and salaries of managers by 10%.

*Reduce public spending from BF325 billion to BF200 billion in 1982, primarily by cutting social security payments, which are among the most generous in Europe.

At the same time the government would try to reduce unemployment by a token amount through tax concessions to the construction industry.

After four days of debate Martens won his vote of confidence. He announced that before introducing the economic measures there would be "real but brief' consultation with the unions. Lack of agreement would not stop the government acting.

Tre B lgian trade union movement was split in its response to these proposals. Leaders of the Catholic unions tended towards acceptance of the proposals, while the Socialist union, the FTGB, called a 24-hour general strike for Monday 8 february.

These differences had already been reflected in Saga Democratic Partorm HUN the textile industry where workers in Flanders voted to accept wage cuts in late January while those in Wallonia had burnt their ballot papers.

The 24-hour general strike was total in the French-speaking south (with the Socialist union and the French-speaking wing of the Catholic CSC union observing the strike) and widespread in Brussels but not so widely observed in Flanders.

The extent of the pressures building up within the French speaking wing of the Social Christian Party were illustrated by a near unanimous vote on the eve of the one-day strike by workers in. the CSC in Namur to form a new political movement because the Social Christians - in supporting the government - were drawing away from their grass roots trade union support.

Two days later, Martens called the receiver into the state-owned Cockerill yards, the leading shipyard in Belgium. Since this was one of the 'lame ducks propped up by state aid' the government had proposed introducing the 5% wage cut for manual workers and 10% for managers.

Close down

The 2.700 workers voted narrowly to reject the wage cuts, and in a show of strength the receivers were called in.

Whether Martens proceed to close the shipyard down remains to be seen. An estimated 45,000 people in the Antwerp area and 10,000 engineering workers in Wallonia rely on the shipyard.

Wage-cutting

Martens finally introduced his wage-cutting decree on February 21 together with an 8.5% devaluation of the Belgian Franc - the first devaluation in 33 years. The immediate effect was to raise the cost of food, energy and imported raw materials.

- The • government no doubt hoped that the shock wave created throughout Belgian society by the devaluation would neutralise union opposition to government austerity Prime Minister Martens Mar 31: Women and the

Swindale

plans. The response of the unions to the wages decree and devaluation was certainly muted. They suspended all industrial action and announced their intention of waiting to see what cuts in social security the government would propose in their March budget before deciding on further action.

The crisis in the steel industry, however, is forcing the pace of conflict between the working class and the government. Belgium, with a total population of 9.8 million produces. 12.3 million tonnes of steel a year (compared with Britain's 15 million tonnes) but only sells 20% of this to the home market.

Overcapacity

With massive overcapacity in steel-making throughout Europe, the EEC Commission is anxious to see Belgium contribute its share to the reduction in steel-making capacity within the Common Market. By heavily subsidising the steel industry, successive Belgian governments have safeguarded their large shares of other EEC countries' steel markets. The EEC commissioner responsible for ensuring the restructuring of the belgian steel industry is himseli a Belgian Nistrur: Etienne Davigror - iné ubjeci o: a violer: demonstration in Brusse:s steelworker: tricended in clashes cear ie parliament March 730pm For rea

between sabre-wielding mounted police and steelworkers in which the police came off worst!

The heart of the problem in steel is CockerillSambre, the resuit of a recent merger between

Cockerill of Liege and Hainault-Sambre of Charleroi, in which the government has an 80% holding. The steel mills have been kept going because they are situated in areas of high unemployment.

In Liege, unemployment has stood at over 20% for the last two years. Total closure of Cockerill-Sambre would result in a further 25,000 direct workers and 75,000 indirect workers losing their jobs.

Cut capacity

The restructuring that the EEC Commission now wants to see would cut capacity by 2 million tonnes a year at a cost of 10,000 direct jobs. The Belgian government also wants to introduce its 5% wage cut for workers in lame duck industries into steel.

The response of the steelworkers has been militant. The march on the EEC offices and Parliament was followed by a general strike in Liege against the threat to steel and the government austerity measures on 24 February which shut down the city's steel plants. buses, department stores and other factories, including the leading Belgian arms factory, Fabrique Nationale. Trains on the Liege-Brussels line were blocked for 2 hours by steel workers.

And when talks between the steel unions and Viscount Etienne Davignon -in which the Belgian government conspicuouls! refused to participate -collapsed at the end of february, an all-out strike was launched in the steel industry from 1 March.

While the main objective is to defend jobs and wages in steel, militant steel workers have made it clear that they want to broaden this strike into an all-out assault on the Martens government and its austerity programme.

Half mast

Liege - with many shops shut, flags at hal:

mast, and music only being played by the strike bourc RTBF radio station - highlights the emerging political crisis in Belgium - * crisis which the workers can only begin to resolve cr pressing further the lettative moves towards = united front by the Fleet:

and French-spear: = unions towards a ger=-= strike against the Mart= government. Tre ==":

few weeks will see ==.ant decisions takecuts in social securi: = 3 budget and the fate Belgian steel indrea:

The goverts:

on the suríace s-- 2-mined i but it arce Masseur ::

DARE BEE ...dem *--: INH War=

Scan page 8

WHEN AND WHERE: Saturday April 3, 10.30 to 4.30, Digbet| Hall, Birmingham. For details of transport to Birmingham, phone John Bloxam on 01-609 3071.

SPEAKERS: Val Dunn (victimised Bakers' Union militant), Bernard Connolly (steel strike leader, Rotherham), Ray Davies (ISTC), Steve Longshaw (Laurence Scotts), Peter Tatchell (Bermondsey CLP), lan Williams (NUR), Bobby Owens (TGWI unemployed branch, 6/612), plus reports from women in struggle and from Women's Fightback trade union conference. WORKSHOPS on: Women and the unions; black workers, Labour Party democracy and the trade unions; organising the unemployed; organising the rank and file .. Broad Lefts etc; debate on officials - 'accountability' and direct election. Vide 'Question of Leadership'. And in the lunchbreak • trade unio caucus meetings and video on Laurence Scotts. Trades Council, Trafford Trades Council, Basingstoke and Deane Trades Council, British Library branch, TGWU 5/822, TGWU 5/287, TGWU 5/104, Oxford NUJ, ACTSS-APEX joint committee GEC Coventry, USDAW D96, NUPE ILEA DisLabour Party, Coventry Labour Left, Birmingham Labour Left, and in a personal capacity, Reg Race MP, Les Huckfield MP and Mike Cooley.

DELEGATES: and observers invited from all labour tials £2. Cheques payable to Socialist Organiser.

WRITE TO: Democracy Conference, RATHER THAN accept RATHER THAN accept state-imposed limitations state-imposed limitations on trade union activity, the on trade union activity, the labour movement made it labour movement made it impossible for the last Tory government to rule. Finally we brought it down.

But today • the labour movement is suicidally passive and docile, as a restrictive new legal framework is imposed by Thatcher's government on the trade unions.

If we don't begin to fight back now, we will find that a major legal shift in the balance of power in industry has been imposed on the working class - without a fight.

Surrender

Nothing so shameful as this surrender of what we spent many decades winning has happened in BritBritish labour movement since the General Strike was betrayed by the leaders of the TUC back in 1926. Yet it is happening.

If the serious left does not sound the alarm and succeed in rallying the labour movement to fight this vicious government now, then we will enter the next round of industrial militancy at a massive legal disadvantage.

We have now, and. can decide to use, the power of direct industrial action to confront and defeat the Tory attempt to shackle the unions. We must galvanise ourselves to use it.

Look at the facts.

In 1980 the 'Employment Act was brought in by labou CRECHE: Will be available.

Middle Lane, London N8. James Prior. It outlawed mass pickets and flying pickets, and restricted the right of sympathetic strike action.

The TUC responded weakly and indecisively. The slump deepened and unemployment accelerated dramatically. The day of action on May 14/ 1980, was not a shot across the Tories' bows, but proof the TUC had deliberately let its powder get damp.

It encouraged the Tories. The TUC has not even tried to do anything since.

Now Norman Tebbit has brought in the second instalment of what the Tories want to do to the unions. It is not likely to be the last instalment if we ation than with precise demands for action. JOHN O'MAHONY sounds the alarm. don't fight back against it more seriously, militantly, and effectively than we did against Prior's instalment.

Certainly, the return of a Tory government or of a Tory/SDP/Liberal coalition would lead to an attempt at a third instalment.

These are the Tory salami tactics to achieve what Wilson failed to do in 1969 and Heath in 1971-4 by the tactic of all-out assault.

Tebbit's Bill is the fourth attempt to reshape the unions in the last dozen years. Wilson's and Heath's were ripped up by trade union action.

This is what the clearheaded Financial Times -which is as moderate or extreme - as the bosses need it to be at a given moment — said in an editorial on November 24 last year:

•The Wilson government's... proposals in 1969 fell foul of trade union opposition. The Heath government's attempts to impose a legal straitjacket on a voluntary informal system of industrial relations was precipitate and over-ambitious.

•The present Conservative government has taken a more cautious approach. The 1980 Employment Act dealt with specific abuses relating to the closed shop, picketing and certain other matters. Now Mr Norman Tebbit, the new Employment Secretary, has introduced proposals which go somewhat further, particularly on trade union immunities and the definition of a trade dispute"

David Waddington, under secretary of State for Employment, has let the Tory cat out of the bag with the blunt warning that if the trade union leaders do not proceed to 'reform' the trade unions in time, 'the government will have to react to democratic pressure to democratise the themselves' (Financial Times, December Ist). He has in mind the 'democracy' made notorious in the labour movement by Frank Chapple.

Thus the employers and their government want to do what Heath and Wilson attempted → to get the trade union 'leadership' to act as vigorously repressive policemen for the ruling class against the rank and file.

Mr Walter Goldsmith, director-general of the Institute of Directors, said that the proposals, "begin to bring unions within the framework of law that applies to the rest of society, invite them to undertake a long overdue reform of their internal democracy; and, above all, put some onus on trade union leaders to act responsibly in the interests of all their members" (Daily Telegraph, 24.11.81, emphasis added).

They want to put the trade union bureaucracy on the spot.

In the 1969 and 1971-4 attempts on the effectiveness of the unions as instruments of the rank and file, there was not mass unemployment and mass closures. There was a vigorous rank and file shop stewards' movement.

Crust

From the mid-'50s onwards, the bureaucratic crust imposed after the defeat of the General Strike land by the slump) was loosened and pushed aside, along with the centrality of nationally negotiated wage agreements. The bureaucracy had time and again proved unable to deliver its goods over the counter to the employers.

The law was brought in:

the goal was to compel the union leaders, in tandem with the state, to police the rank and file in the interests of the better running of the capitalist system. But they still could not deliver. They were forced into opposition - caught between the millwheels of the government and the rank and file. In the struggle against Wilson, and then again in the fight against Heath, the bureaucrats were driven into opposition to the government.

Not vigorous opposition:

tail-ending, foot-dragging, inhibited and inhibiting opposition - but opposition. The opposition of the bureaucrats helped to generate the. wide and mass-based hostility to the government's plans, especially in 1971.

Despite the bureaucrats intentions, their agitation stirred up workers who were not easily quelled and quietened - and thus helped create the basis for mass rank and file action, such The TUC: public protest, private as that which arose when five dockers were jailed in July 1972.

This period partly restored the union bureaucracy to a central leadership role, and rehabilitated them with sections of the rank and file. The dominant face of trade union officialdom became of 'lefts' Jones and Scanlon. But the credit accumulated with the rank and file was handed over to the Labour Party in government after 1974.

Today things are very different from the early '70s. There is mass unemployment and slump. Openly right wing trade union leaderships are in the ascendant.

Eroded

The upper layers of the shop stewards' movement have been seriously bureaucratised. Trade union membership and rank and file militancy have been eroded.

That means that the Tory approach is not merely a matter of taking a slice at a time, but also of calculating that the bureaucracy is now much more likely to be able land therefore willing to try) to comply with the demand that they again become effective policemen.

To judge by their response so tar, the bureaucracy are willing to try.

In any case they prefer to 'have a go' at policing the rank and file, rather than to take on the government.

They have gone through the motions of objecting and protesting. Some of them have proposed feeble gestures like half hour strikes. They have got the willingness to live with T Labour Party to agres repeal the Tory legislat And that's all! Like unwilling soldier glad let himself be a prisone war, they now told t arms, accept lory shac for the labour movem and collect 10p a head the legal expenses.

Slump The effects of the sl on the labour moven and even the depres fiasco of the Day of Ad do not suffice to ex it. The explanation is the bureaucracy thin can live with the new le ation. And it thinks it re-establish the sor relation with the rank file which existed from after the defeat of the' eral Strike to the late 'E There is no reaso expect anything else the • bureaucrats. won't lead in a serious unless they feel the !

breath of the rank ani on their necks. Treas the working class is trade, and generatioi them have served a apprenticeship in it.

But what of the Ci unist Party, the most.

erful supposedly mi force among the rant file and sections ol bureaucracy? Prior's Tebbit's Bills put bureaucracy on the Because their entire egy is to work with, ir ate into bureaucracy 'push it to the left' " t)

is also being put o spot.

To organise a figh ainst Tebbit would require them to be v to break with the br

----- pull-quotes -----

reacted more with weary resign- AGAINST CONFERENCE Democratis r movement!